LAWS(KAR)-2010-6-135

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER SRI S.M. DHARMANANDA RAO Vs. SRI ARUN KUMAR SHETTY S/O BHASKAR SHETTY AND SMT. MEENAKSHI HEGDE W/O PRABHAKAR HEGDE

Decided On June 16, 2010
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. By Its Divisional Manager Sri S.M. Dharmananda Rao Appellant
V/S
Sri Arun Kumar Shetty S/O Bhaskar Shetty And Smt. Meenakshi Hegde W/O Prabhakar Hegde Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal by the United India Insurance Company Limited, two questions arise for consideration. The first one is, whether a person who himself is responsible for the accident can maintain a claim petition Under Section 163A of the M.V. Act. 1988 and the second one is, whether the Claims Tribunal could have entertained a petition Under Section 163A when the income of the claimant exceeds the ceiling limit of Rs. 40.000/ - per annum.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the 1st respondent -petitioner was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing Regn. No. KA -20 -Q -211 belonging to the 2nd respondent Smt. Meenakshi Hegde and he was also carrying in the said vehicle his brother Praveen Kumar Shetty as the pillion rider and near Balkattu Bridge of Ampar Village of Kundapar Taluk, the claimant i.e. the 1st respondent Arun Kumar Shetty who was riding the vehicle, suddenly applied brakes and on account of that, the motorcycle skidded, and went off the road and on account of his fault, the claimant sustained injuries. A claim petition was filed Under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, 1988 ('Act' in brief) and the tribunal allowed the claim application of the 1st respondent Arun Kumar Shetty and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,15,200/ - and the liability was put on the appellant -Insurance Company. It is this finding of the MAOT, Kundapur, that is assailed in this appeal by the Insurance Company.

(3.) SRI . B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the claimant who was riding the motorcycle, though belonging to the owner Smt. Meenakshi Hegde, had put himself into the shoes of the owner and therefore for his own negligence and also as the accident did not involve any other vehicle except the vehicle which was being driven by the claimant himself, a claim petition Under Section 163A of the Act could not have been maintained by the claimant as he having stepped into the shoes of the owner cannot be a person who is liable as the owner of the vehicle and at the same time, be the person entitled to receive compensation, Therefore, relying on the decisions reported in Appaji (since deceased) and Another Vs. M. Krishna and Another, (2004) ACJ 1289 , Ningamma and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 3056 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rukiya, II (2007) ACC 728 , New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sunil and Another, (2007) ACJ 278 and Guruanna Vadi and another Vs. The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and another, AIR 2001 Kant 275 , learned Counsel contended that the Claims Tribunal could not have put the liability on the Insurance Company. Particular reference was made by the learned Counsel to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ningamma and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 3056 to contend that the law is well settled by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decision and the Apex Court has clearly laid down the law that the person who borrows a vehicle from the owner steps into the shoes of the owner and therefore, such a person when he sustains injuries due to his own fault and thus stands in the position of a tortfeasor, cannot claim compensation against himself as the owner in the other capacity. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Ningamma's case and also in the case reported in 2009 AIR SCW 1372 and referring to the Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Appaji (since deceased) and Another Vs. M. Krishna and Another, (2004) ACJ 1289 , learned Counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the liability put on the appellant Insurance Company has to be set aside in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard.